Oh… I see! Very bad toothache, not easy to cure… 
1 Like
This “Trolley” thought experiment is not from the suttas. It has been developed by philosophers in the 20th century in order to discuss ethical matters.
Unlike the Buddha, what they consider is only the outcome of a certain action or decision, not the motivation. So for them, if there are five people killed instead of one, the number is the only thing that counts. One person losing their life versus five; so the choice with the “only one” outcome must be the ethically better one according to their thinking because it brings the lesser amount of suffering overall.
This is of course a bit one-sided, especially as it denies the difference between an accident and a deliberate act of killing, and it doesn’t consider at all things like motivation.
What comes into play here is to make judgements over the worth of different people’s lives.
Can we safely assume that the life of one doctor is more worth that those of five convicts? A convict may have done a very bad deed, but on other occasions they may have a loving and caring attitude towards people who are dear to them. And a doctor, even if they have discovered a cure for cancer, may not do their work out of compassion at all. They may base their whole career on the sole purpose to acquire a high renown. And even the very worst of criminals may still change their attitude if they get the chance to live long enough, like for example in the case of Angulimala.
Neither is the sheer number of lives a reliable indicator of their moral value, nor anything we might happen to know about the respective people. There is no way to make a judgement about whose life deserves to be continued more than somebody else’s.
Concerning the latter aspect, judging the value of different people’s lives, there is this story Ajahn Brahm likes to tell sometimes:
A group of meditating monks are living in a cave in the forest, and some robbers come and threaten to kill them because they want to use the cave in order to hide themselves. The monks manage to negotiate that they are set free, but the robbers insist that one at least has to be killed, and they ask the abbot to make the choice. The group includes the abbot, his brother, his best friend, his enemy, an old monk close to death, a very sick monk, and a completely useless monk. Which one should he chose to be killed?
And Ajahn Brahm always makes a point that “opening the door of one’s heart” means exactly not to make such a choice! It also includes not to chose oneself for the sacrifice. The attitude of metta means equally loving all these people, regardless of how familiar they are to me, how well I can come along with them, or what “use” they may have in terms of worldly work. In Ajahn Brahm’s version of the story the abbot manages to explain this to the robbers, and they end up becoming monks themselves…
No idea if this story has any base in the suttas, though; but it certainly reflects the spirit of the Buddha’s teaching!
4 Likes
I had the same thought earlier when reading this thread and was reminded of a line from Graham Greene that I jotted down a while ago:
Suffering is not increased by numbers: one body can contain all the suffering the world can feel.
He’s a Catholic writer, so maybe he was referring to Jesus getting crucified, but it does show he had a deeper understanding of suffering…
1 Like
Sorry, I may not have explained myself clearly;
Everything is dependent on intention. Whether it is intention to live according to conventions and conditioning, or to live free of conditioning, with a liberated mind. The goal of the path set out by the Buddha is for liberation from suffering and Nibbanna… ie to see that “the moral dilemna” is a construction and not as things really are. There is no ‘moral dilemna’ that exists of its own right, it only exists because of the conditioning of the mind… the mind is attached… there is a self…
So ‘logical’ or’ socially moral’, solutions may be the way to navigate through Samsara… but they tether us to Samsara, and to suffering.
1 Like
I thought there was a EBT which said there are four choices and the ideal one to make is the first one:
-
This act benefits myself and others
-
This act benefits myself but not others
-
This act benefits others but not me
-
This act harms both myself and others
-
is mentioned in the Kalama sutta.
I think under any given circumstances we just have to do the best that we can - we might be tired or confused and might forget all we learnt about morality under pressure. As long as being moral is something we have been doing for many years the natural and best choice will happen automatically in some situations- others may require some contemplation while keeping a check on one’s conscience.
With metta
3 Likes
I think this is a really interesting question too - for my penny’s worth, I find a problem with the concept of being ‘punished or rewarded by the universe’. There is no one or thing doling out punishment according to the Buddha, rather an action, word or thought, when violational, affects the person one way or another. On a micro scale, if a child runs out into the road in front of my car and is injured or killed, I would surely suffer in a myriad of ways as a result. If I was driving neglectfully (thus making a violational decision) at the time, my suffering would be much worse. If I think about doing something hurtful but don’t act on it because it is not physically possible to do so, I am creating a darkness in my mind which in a small way affects my attitude to myself and therefore future actions, potentially. If I thought about hurting someone and chose not to because I don’t want to hurt them, then the karma I’ve made would be much lighter , I think. None of these examples involve punishment or reward. This is why I find the concept of karma so alluring. the relationship between Karma and Vipaka according to Majjhima Nikaya 135 gives a rather binary layout, for instance, be angry in this life and you will be ugly in the next. Be generous in this life and you will be rich in the next. I thought this was too neat and simplistic when.i first read it but of course Karma is only one of 5 modes of dependant origination so perhaps the binary explaination is so neat because it purposely leaves out all the other aspects of life that influence our present and future.
3 Likes
Why do you need to kill a rapist to save the girl?
Why the girl who used the money to feed her starving family must be the prostitute you patronized?
To quote a teaching by a Ajahn i heard recently, “our heart loves to make up a story, jump into it, direct it and believe all of it”.
I remember the story of a Thai Ajahn whom were commonly believed to have attained. He had certain abilities through his practice of Vipassana to knows happenings. He related once he accidentally threw something out of the window (or something else, sorry i can’t remember the details) and it hit a dog on the nose. The dog’s nose bled. He didn’t have the intention at all cause he didn’t even know the dog is outside the window.
Later on through his Vipassana, he knew something is going to happen while he was at a chanting ceremony. The wind blew, unlodged a piece of wood on the ceiling and the wood came swinging down, hitting him on the nose. Among all the monks who were sitting nearby, it just happened to him. His spectacle were broken and nose bled. But healed up fast later on.
Although we are not intended to kill the ants or whatsoever little bugs we couldn’t even see. How sure are we there’s no Karma? Where did the maggots and bacteria that eat away our body when we die come from?
In any scenario, Karma is too complicated to be understood. That’s why Buddha didn’t encourage us to even think about it.
A rapist raping a girl. Why did that rapist chose that girl? Why did the girl is ongoing to be a victim? Why were you there but not some other enlightened monk?
There’s endless scenarios. It could be a Karma debt ripening between the 3 of you. Any unwholesome actions performed will just set on stage for the Karma to ripen in next other lives. Remember the Buddha taught, you cannot solve anger with anger. Only compassion with anger.
Could it even be possible to not incur any negative unwholesome intentions while you were killing the rapist to save the girl? Considering such situation usually arises suddenly, when you took up the weapon to kill that rapist, is it possible to have no unwholesome desire to call up the force to strike another human being with violence? The first strike you might be able to release the rapist from the victim. And unlikely to kill the rapist. Why did you took the 2nd strike and even subsequent strike to finish him off? If using a gun, the gun could used to fire a warning shot or non-fatal shot. So why do you need to finish him off? Can we be sure there’s no bad intention involved? Or are we self-justifying?
1 Like
I agree the first one would be the ideal choice, but I highly doubt the fourth choice—of harming both others and yourself—was suggested by the Buddha. What Sutta did you get this from?
1 Like
The Buddha didn’t of course suggest things like this.
What he usually did was listing four types of people, like one who acts for the benefit of themselves and others, one who acts for the benefit of themselves, but not others, one who acts for the benefit of others, but not themselves, and one who acts for the benefit of neither themselves nor others. Then he probably say this should be praised, and that should not be praised or so.
I can’t remember the exact sutta now.
4 Likes
Ah, that would make sense. Obviously, the 2nd and 3rd would be okay (if it benefits you, but doesn’t benefit or harm others, that is fine, of which there are various situations in daily life this would come under). However, suggesting the 4th would make no sense.
1 Like
AN4.95 shows how the Buddha values these options individually. I also came across a much longer (MN?) with the same teachings some time ago. I agree with what you said. I find it is helpful for me to evaluate my moral decisions in this way. It serves as a useful framework and is a guidance to my thoughts.
With metta
3 Likes